DIY Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
50,578 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
E-Type has 68 miles of zero-emission range, with 560 miles of extended driving range provided by micro-turbines fueled by variety fuels from diesel to LPG.

More...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
This car looks amazing, the article above doesn't work for me, so for anyone else that is interested, this article on PistonHeads has some more info:

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/news/default.asp?storyId=22547





"At the centre of the car sit state-of-the-art, mid-mounted micro gas-turbines. These can either generate 140kW (188bhp) to charge the batteries and extend the range of the car to a remarkable 900km (560 miles) – enough to drive from London to Berlin on a single tank – or when in Track mode provide supplementary power directly to the electric motors."

Has anyone used Micro Turbines for a range extender in an electric car off this site? Would be quite interesting to see the results, anyone know?

Thanks

Pel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
"At the centre of the car sit state-of-the-art, mid-mounted micro gas-turbines. These can either generate 140kW (188bhp) to charge the batteries and extend the range of the car to a remarkable 900km (560 miles) – enough to drive from London to Berlin on a single tank – or when in Track mode provide supplementary power directly to the electric motors."

Has anyone used Micro Turbines for a range extender in an electric car off this site? Would be quite interesting to see the results, anyone know?
Another car using a (Capstone) micro turbine is Neil Young's LincVolt :cool:

http://lincvolt.force.com/lincvolt_lincvoltgazette

This is an outstanding and imaginative conversion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,466 Posts
Cheers mate, I'll give it a read.
About 1 year ago on Capstones web site was a link to a guy that was linking microturbines together for diesel like effency same as ford did in the 60's he explained the hole thing great . lost the link , called capstone no help .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
Last I heard, gas turbines have some significant disadvantages over reciprocating engines. Peak efficiency doesn't compare to a diesel (though power to weight is much better) and the peak effieciency is found in a fairly narrow operating range.

I wish they would say more about those turbine engines.

Beautiful car though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Last I heard, gas turbines have some significant disadvantages over reciprocating engines. Peak efficiency doesn't compare to a diesel (though power to weight is much better) and the peak efficiency is found in a fairly narrow operating range.

I wish they would say more about those turbine engines.

Beautiful car though.
Apparently, they have 80% efficiency when the heat is used for energy generation aswell, but could the same principle be applied to a reciprocating engine? I couldn't find much on it to be fair so I have no idea.

Jaguar said this about their turbines:

"With fewer moving parts and air bearings, turbines do not need oil lubrication or water-cooling systems, all of which offers considerable weight-saving benefits. They can also be run on a range of fuels including diesel, biofuels, compressed natural gas and liquid petroleum gas. Turbines reach their optimum operating speed and temperature in seconds and so can be used in short bursts to top up the batteries without compromising fuel consumption or life-cycle."

Can diesels engines run on any renewable fuel? The thing about not needing oil or water cooling seems great. And they sound good too, the only diesel I have heard that sounds good is the Audi Le Mans Diesel. :)

With the power to weight comment, it seems like it would be suited for a very small conversion, that wanted a range extender, like motorbike perhaps, or a tiny car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
Wow, the Jag does 0-100 in 5.5 sec. Subtracting the initial 68 mile all electric range from the 560 miles equals 492 miles and has a 15.8 gallon fuel tank (60 liters) so that is around 31 mpg running on turbine. Considering how heavy that car must be, the turbine's efficiency appears to be pretty good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
Apparently, they have 80% efficiency when the heat is used for energy generation aswell, but could the same principle be applied to a reciprocating engine? I couldn't find much on it to be fair so I have no idea.
Correct. While I may never be able to fully suppress my ICE tendancies, one of the things I absolutely hate about them is their net thermal efficiency. Thermal efficiency is the term used because these are heat engines since they convert heat into work. How much of the heat generated that gets turned into usable work is the efficiency of the engine (MPG numbers are meaningless when you examine efficiency within the engine in this manner).

You are absolutely correct that any heat engine is more efficient when waste heat energy is used to generate more work. Diesels are generally around 40% efficient (for highway engines), gas turbines and otto cycle petrol engines are more or less tied at 30%. This does NOT account for things like emission controls, power steering, and power transmission losses between the crank shaft and the road. Over all ICE powered vehicles are very inefficient.

Place a diesel, turbine, or otto engine in a pot of water and you will get more energy out of the heat generated (wasted) than you will from the crank shaft:eek: (that example is impossible, but its only for a visual).

Recovering that waste energy is the problem however since no recovery system is completely efficient and the extra equipment is heavy. It works well for stationary power plants but scaling it down small enough for a mobile vehicle is a challenge.

Can diesels engines run on any renewable fuel? The thing about not needing oil or water cooling seems great. And they sound good too, the only diesel I have heard that sounds good is the Audi Le Mans Diesel. :)
Diesels have a lot in common with turbine engines in how they use their fuel. Both engines run a variable mixture ratio (usually on the lean side of stoichiometric unless something is wrong), and both require high pressure fuel delivery systems to inject fuel into the chamber so it can be burned instantly when exposed to maximum compression. Otto cycle engines do not inject fuel at the top of the compression stroke and rely on a stable mixture ratio via throttle body to produce a stable and complete burn. The injection system alone is a big reason why diesels have always been more expensive to build.

The only thing preventing a diesel engine from running on different fuels other than strait #1 or #2 is the fuel system. The engine itself can easily burn anything that can flow through a pipe and forced through an injector. Lots of guys burn biodiesel, or used engine oil in their older mechanically injected diesels. I'm not advising the practice because that can damage the injection system if done wrong or if a bad batch of "fuel" is used, but if done right it works very well. My truck seems to love the stuff when I tried it a while back. More power, better MPGs and no smoke (engine oil has higher BTUs/ gallon than diesel fuel).

With the power to weight comment, it seems like it would be suited for a very small conversion, that wanted a range extender, like motorbike perhaps, or a tiny car.
I was mainly thinking along the lines of aircraft where weight is very important and has a much more noticable effect on the range or efficiency of the vehicle (which is why you won't see big heavy diesels powering airlines even though thermal conversion efficiency is better for the diesel). Road going machines aren't affected as much but every pound does still add up.

Don't get me wrong, I like turbine engines and would love to get my hands one one of them to tinker with but I just don't see the efficiency numbers adding up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
Wow, the Jag does 0-100 in 5.5 sec. Subtracting the initial 68 mile all electric range from the 560 miles equals 492 miles and has a 15.8 gallon fuel tank (60 liters) so that is around 31 mpg running on turbine. Considering how heavy that car must be, the turbine's efficiency appears to be pretty good.
I would have to disagree with that as being impressive. I have a 6000lb diesel pickup that can consistently deliver 24-25 MPG when cruising at 55 MPH. Granted it isn't stock anymore, but still, most of the junk in it is over 20 years old. Considering the horrible drag coefficient and much larger frontal cross section, I would expect the jag to get at least twice the MPGs. Many midsized cars and smaller SUVs can already cruise in the 30 MPG zone these days.

Compact diesel pickups sold in the 1980s could easily reach 40 at those speeds.

Sorry if I'm being a downer about this but other than an interesting project, I don't see the potential here unless they are able to get the efficiency up. As a super car it does have some novelty I guess.
 

·
Admin: 'one of many'
Joined
·
4,838 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
Once your truck can do 0-100 in 5.5, top out at 205 mph, get 30+ mpg and use no diesel the first 68 miles I too will be impressed:) What were the early diesel vehicles like before turbos? Now look have far they have come especially with variable geometry turbos to all but eliminate lag. I would be surprised if they weren't able to improve on the turbine/electric combo given a little more time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
Once your truck can do 0-100 in 5.5, top out at 205 mph, get 30+ mpg and use no diesel the first 68 miles I too will be impressed:) What were the early diesel vehicles like before turbos? Now look have far they have come especially with variable geometry turbos to all but eliminate lag. I would be surprised if they weren't able to improve on the turbine/electric combo given a little more time.
I just don't see the point in a 2 seat 3000lb supercar that gets worse fuel economy than the average 5 seat family sedan running on strait gasoline through a conventional powertrain. A diesel sedan or hybrid like the prius will get better still, not to mention the price difference. For all its complexity, I don't see this as any kind of leap forward.

£200,000 can buy you a lot of .......











anything! LOL:p

One final word of caution is this is all coming from press releases so far. I would not believe any of their power, top speed or MPG numbers until verified by an independant body. Vaporware is rampant in the auto industry but unfortunately its even worse when they are trying to look green.

As far as engines evolving over time, you are confusing power with efficiency......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,466 Posts
good posts and the video , capstones run after compressed air threw a heat exchanger to recover exhaust heat so less fuel is needed . 20-25% eff . demonstrated . 200 deg. f. exhaust temp. Single speed , big gear box and great expense in making turbines were given as the reasons for not implementing them in cars and trucks in the 60's . Capstone is configured like turbocharger, centrifugal compressor and turbine wheel (exhaust) tied directly to the generator ( no gear reduction ) . This turbo generator uses air bearing (no oil ) of NASA design . Ford built a semi truck with the turbine / heat exchanger but added second unit , cross plumed the 2 units with valves so different pressures could be seen buy the unit . confused ! this makes the turbine think its at say 30,000 ft. for low power (10%) and then at 20,000 FT. for 30% power, then buy more valve switching sea level (!00%) power. all done at the same turbine speed (max eff.) this made for diesel truck eff . ( 1960's) . So speed / gearbox are no longer a issue for a generator . We now have 3 eff. power levels . We now have the expensive turbine materials and manufacture . Well turbo chargers are using the same materials and speeds for $1000 - 2000 . So the day of the crank shaft should have ended a long time ago . I wish I could find that link , he was much better at describing Fords work and his which was based on using turbochargers . I wonder if The Jag. is cross tying it's 2 units , my bet is yes ! With maybe slightly underszed heat exchangers . I had talked to a turbine engine guy about this system said it was hard get everthing sized right .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,466 Posts
Capstone has made micro turbines for years , lots of them out there . used they go for about $15000 . check out there site I haven't been on it for some time .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,958 Posts
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top